Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

To access our archive, please log in or register now and read two articles from our archive every month for free. For unlimited access to our archive, as well as to the unrivaled analysis of PS On Point, subscribe now.

If Chinese President or Chinese Communist government is smart, they should let Hong Kong remain Hong Kong. It is good strategy for the economy, for Hong Kong, and for China. One country two systems is working. To backtrack what you have promised--allowing Hong Kongers to vote for their chief executive without intervention--made Chinese government lose credibility in front of Hong Kongers and in front of the whole world.

Gov Patten's view typify a westerner's view of HK. See analysis of their flaws in http://www.chinausfocus.com/political-social-development/hong-kong-protesters-need-to-weigh-the-consequences-to-their-future/

What's the "way ahead in Hong Kong"? It is still a liberal society. But the Hong Kongers are working hard on turning it into a real democracy. It is what the recent protests were all about.
Chris Patten has reasons to take the recent protests in Hong Kong to heart, after all he was the last governor of the colony, when it was handed back to China in 1997. Before he left, his government had started to introduce democracy and give the citizens a taste of what they had been promised in the agreement - the Sino-British Joint Declaration.
Looking back he saw that the democratisation process had been blocked by Beijing, while upholding Xiaoping's principle of "one country, two systems". Yet in recent years Hong Kongers fear their open society has come under threat, as China seems to tighten its grip on Hong Kong. Currently they still enjoy the rule of rule, an honest civil service and civil liberties. But the people want to be able to "run their affairs as they were promised, choosing those who govern them in free and fair elections".
What may alarm Beijing is the fact that the people in Hong Kong see themselves as "Hong Kongers", even Asians or world citizens — before identifying themselves as citizens of the People's Republic of China. This sense of citizenship is one of the things that had most clearly flourished since the handover in 1997. Beijing has been trying to boost nationalism by trying to impose a "patriotic education curriculum" in schools. Yet it was too late.
It's true that is not only in the interest of the Hong Kongers but also "in China’s interest", to have stability in Hong Kong. It's doubtful whether China would care much about its "honor and standing in the world". It has always warned outsiders against meddling in China's domestic affairs. Although the leadership in Beijing thinks it would be able to bring the people in Hong Kong to their knees, it will face wide resistance in reining in their aspiration.

Talking about (PRC) as an authoritarian government by a former (UK) Governor of Hong Kong who (btw) was appointed by Whitehall Mandarins. Not Hong Kong citizens...it was imperial Britain's policy in all its colonies.
PRC has adopted a *one country - two system* policy under its Basic Law governing Hong Kong. I'm sure most of the citizens are in accord with HK Basic Law - which doesn't cover universal suffrage.

While I believe that free elections and peoples' free will are the cornerstone of any democratic society, I fail to understand what purpose is served by the likes of Chris Patten and the Western Governments riding their moral horse and preaching to the world what they themselves do not believe in. Does one need reminding what happened to the 1.8 million people of Gaza when, through the same free and fair elections the British and American foisted on Gazans, elected a Government the West did not like. Overnight they boycotted the Government and the results are there for all to see. PRC or Hong Kong does not need any gratuitous advice, least of all from those who run their affairs through double-talk.

The "Pandora's box" of democracy has long been opened, and can never be re-shut. Election precedents exist throughout China - from council seat elections in Hong Kong to the now fairly ubiquitous election of village chiefs on the mainland. The latter has not been allowed scale to larger towns and cities, and indeed there is no sign that there is a demand within China for this to be done. Most importantly however, the principle that Hong Kong is a political aberration is already enshrined in the minds of ordinary Chinese. The CCP should not fear universal suffrage in Hong Kong; it will not lead to cascading demands for universal suffrage on the mainland. Censorship, and a lack or organizing institutions, will ensure that.

What most people in Hong Kong want is to elect a chief executive who can rule effectively. During the Asian financial crisis, when the Hong Kong economy was in a severe slump, many people actually believed that China should appoint a governor for Hong Kong much like what London did.
I am pessimistic about democracy in Hong Kong, not because I don't believe China will allow Hong Kong to have fair elections, but because of the quality of the politicians we currently have. Without a strong parliament, it would be very difficult to rule even if we have a strong, democratically-elected chief executive. The "opposition" camp contributes little to building a better, fairer, more prosperous and more harmonious society, but expends all its energy in petty bickering and obstructing everything that the government proposes. I have not come across any western parliamentarians reaching such depths of depravity as to advocate civil disobedience and creating chaos for their own political gains, at least not since the last days of the old labour party during the Thatcher era. Now that these people have revealed their true ugly faces, and they were democratically elected into the legislative council, how can we Hong Kong citizens be sanguine about democracy here ?

PRC mistake requiring vetting of candidates creates a 'problem' that would otherwise not exist. Allowing free nomination and election of candidates would not lead to election of leaders hostile to PRC. Most in HK support or 'go along' with PRC favorable candidates. By requiring pre-selection PRC simply creates a vector for minority civil disobedience. Now PRC is locked in to a likely repression that will make Taiwan oppose 'reunion' and scare neighbors already concerned about the smiling peace loving dragon.

The Hong Kong precedent of free election is what China fears - not the views of the person elected. There is a tremendous opportunity to negotiate a model for Hong Kong that could work for China in time. Models that give the PRC nothing to do and no place to go portend violence. The PRC is the absolute monarch that might yet be persuaded to an evolutionary path to a form of constitutional monarchy; maybe the occupiers of a second chamber with constitutionally defined veto power. More Edmund Burkes and fewer Tom Paines - that's the ticket.

Respectfully , I disagree with Mr. Patton's analysis. The precedent of free elections in Hong Kong would be a direct threat to the mainland government. Mr Patton knows this but ignores it because he disapproves o f the CPP's monopoly of political power. Are the Chinese people ready for their Patrick Henry moment? Almost certainly not. Is the central government so weakened or de-legitimized that it will refrain from mass killing to save itself. Absolutely not. Freedom must wait and the Chinese Government cannot permit Hong Kong to be the match that lights a fire that would then need to be brutally extinguished. The people of Hong Kong should strike the best deal available without overpaying in death and imprisonment.

Finally, to focus on the dis-honourable nature of the Chinese government is obtuse. Of course they are dis-honourable by the standards of the West. They have no choice. They must endure - which means they must treat the political free speech, that would otherwise de-legitimize them over time, as treasonous. Limited life government is our adaptation to free speech. The second is impossible without the first. Free speech really is dangerous to the political structure of any nation. But in the West we have accommodated the destructive property of free speech ( and thereby realize its huge benefits) by a truly audacious adaptation - we allow free speech to destroy our governments over time and peacefully replace them when we need to. There seems little doubt that the people of a Hong Kong are ready to strike this great bargain. China however is not. Whatever our job in the West is, it is not to get people in Hong Kong killed or imprisoned. Hong Kong cannot have what would directly threaten China's Government. We should not pretend otherwise.

A flawlessly argued statement and right to the heart of the matter by Mr. Patten. As a 20 year resident of Hong Kong my experience tells me however that a not insignificant proportion of Chinese (in Hong Kong and elsewhere) distrust democracy as they associate it with instability and rule by the mob. These of course tend to be the well off, the professional classes and the petit bourgeoisie. Which are exactly the people that Beijing has trusted to be the 1200 electors of the Chief Executive. Alas, Beijing has only itself to blame for rubber stamping very poor choices for the Chief Executive post in Hong Kong since 1997.

Isn't it obvious that these people demonstrating in Hong Kong had an understanding that long term they were not going to be ruled by the Chinese Communist Party, and they are extremely disappointed, if not distraught, at the prospect that they may be. I see no evidence at all of it being some foreign plot - it looks exactly like a group of people that want something better than being ruled by a totalitarian system. They are similar to all of the people in different geographic places and different moments in history who felt the same way.

Unfortunately, the protests were glorified by the media as 'umbrella revolution'. They were not. They were simply groups of angry youths who were unhappy about the future and took it on the streets in the name of 'fighting for democracy'. One could see it from a rapid deterioration of support from earlier participants. When a 17 year old kid was able to command a group of people to break into a government building, you know how educated they were. Democracy needs a sound educated mass to make it work as it is about giving a freedom to choose. From what I see in HK, this mass does not exist. The rule of law protects these protesters from law enforcement, but without the rule BY law, it is plain anarchy, and we can forget about the rule OF law. My point is, democracy will only make HK worse on this basis.

I fully agree that the protests have been glorified by international media who has a tendency for sensationalism. The way ahead in Hong Kong will not be easy, whether the protests' wish is granted or not. But I do think that there has to be a mechanism for the voice of ordinary Hongkongnese to be heard other than street protests.

Sorry but I can not agree with your surmise of the political situation in Hong Hong . I'm a Canadain citizen , but do have many ties to Hong Kong and China . These people I know and have lived with are believing that China has changed and a much better place to live in with out a demoractic system of government . I come from a demoractic country . But I really don't belivev a Demoracy will work in Main land China and it territories . Demoracy does not work in every country in this world . This uprising ( Protest ) has its origins in the USA . The Peace and Demoracy group are distants of the 1989 Beijing uprising . I know Chinese Canadians and USA Chinese Canadians that support this group , to a point to sign up people to go to Hong Hong and even vote if it came to a vote . Oh you think there is no freedoms Hong Kong , well since the Bristish left this city to its rightful owners ( China ) there have many more freedoms , Hong Kong friends middle age people mostly , have more freedom and are very wealthy , most do not support any form of Demoracy , except to vote , yes I know this is a demoractic right , but they will vote , either it be for one of the PRPC of choice . I would hope they would want a person in government who is loyal to the People's Republic of China , government , oh where did that name communist go too . Gee I think it left when Moe died . The students protesting now don't know what they are protesting for . This protesting will leave a scare on there resume , when they leave school,and try to get a job in China . The USA is behind this protest and now the UK and Canada has jumped , why any thing to try and destabilize the Chinese economy . Which in time will pass the USA . What will this do the the USA dollar ?

While this is a very eloquent article, it only portrays half of the story. What motivates Hong Kong's demonstrators is much more than their desire for democracy but also the prospect of a dwindling future for the young in a society with a huge gap between the rich and poor. The Chinese government needs to question themselves whether it is wise to create political inequality by siding the rich and the elite in a society with huge economic inequality.